Big Brother and now private companies

Chips in animals have proven to work.

Ten minutes into the future when products are chipped.

Small chip implanted in the wrist of a human. Linked to bank accounts and whatnot.

Fill shopping trolley. Push trolley through reader. Swipe wrist of point of sale reader. Transaction complete.

Pulled up for speeding. Police scan wrist - know who you are, where you live, how many points left on license, whether you own guns, etc.

Sounds silly now. Fact I imagined it means it is possible... and actually probably at some point in time... unless we stop it before it is too late.

Michael Ross

> New devices are first and foremost designed
> to make the company more money - by way of
> reduced expenses. Any price saving is a
> by-product and is not a given result.

Sure, I don't dispute this. In fact I would argue that the sole purpose a company exists -- or at the very least a listed company -- is to maximise its return to shareholders, and thus maximise its profits. As a direct and indirect shareholder in a number of listed companies, I'd be disappointed if their number one goal was any different.

But having said that, the motivation a company has -- increasing profits -- does not alter the end result of some technological advances, namely lower prices. At the end of the day if I, as a consumer, can pay lower prices then I benefit regardless of the initial intention or motivation of the company.

I am of course working on the assumption that competition eventually drives prices down when costs are taken out, but I think this is a fair assumption to make in most industries and areas where competition exists and the cost saving device can be replicated by others.

> A simple electronic tag - as used in clothes
> stores and other retail outlets like Harvey
> Norman - MIGHT be okay. But these tags are
> ID TAGS .

> THAT is the difference.

> Imagine... someone with a reader scans the
> boot of your car. They can then tell WHAT
> you bought and WHERE it was bought -
> probably even how much you bought it for.
> And they can do this WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE
> OR PERMISSION!

Sure, this is a cost. I'm not trying to push the point that these things are fantastic and everyone should support them. My sole point is that there may be some benefits to them, and that it's not a one-sided story.

My personal belief is that this is a problem, but I believe market forces (being consumers like you and I making decisions) will lead to a decent outcome.

Let's suppose smart tags *do* allow your privacy to be invaded, as you've provided examples of, but they also provide lower costs that the company passes on.

As a discerning consumer, you'd then have a choice between possible infringement of your privacy rights and lower costs. I think providing people with such a choice is not in and of itself a bad thing.

> The thing is... no matter how good the
> intention... it WILL be ABUSED. EVERY good
> intention thing - whether govt created or
> not - has had the opposite effect it was
> intended for and has been abused.

So does that mean we should stop any new technology, on the chance it is abused?

> Because after paying cash someone - anyone -
> with a reader can still track your
> purchases.

Ok, I'll agree this is a privacy concern.

But just to reiterate, my main point is that there can be some benefits from such technologies. From the most part I'm a supporter of widespread privacy rights, but I think slamming a new technology on privacy concerns without raising possible benefits presents only one side of the story.

> Think the security issue nmight be pushed at
> some point... hey... register your stuff
> with this here database and break and enters
> will be a thing of the past, because as soon
> they try to pawn it, the pawn shop scan will
> show they are not the rightful owners of the
> items.

Provided this is a choice and not a requirement, I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Some people already go to the extent of labelling their more expensive items in case they are stolen.

Not arguing that there are privacy issues, however there are much greater things to be concerned about. Ubiquitous GPS, software that phones home (Microsoft XP etc.) preventing you using your property in the way you want. Some years ago I wrote an article about a rap on the knuckles Mattel got for providing software with toys that phoned home and requested details from the user, almost always children. Now as adults we can weigh these decisions as to how much privacy we choose to give up for convenience, but when they start targetting children I get offended.

At present the limit on RFID range is physics. The small passive device can only be activated by sending power from a reader. To read from a greater distance needs logarithmically more powerful readers, ie enough to fry your brain as they read whats in your handbag. Sure, new physics may change that picture, but at the moment these tags are mch less of a worry than other privacy issues.
> Today.

> Tommorrow. Who can tell.

> Yesterday. It took a room full of computers
> to send a man to the moon.

> Today. I have more computing power in my
> laptop.

> Beware the creep.

> Michael Ross

> As a discerning consumer, you'd then have a
> choice between possible infringement of your
> privacy rights and lower costs. I think
> providing people with such a choice is not
> in and of itself a bad thing.

But that's just it... if these tags are everywhere, there is NO CHOICE.

You can "spin" the good side of it all you want. Fact is.. stock control with tags can easily be done with tags on boxes of goods. The individual product items do NOT need a RFID Tag.

> So does that mean we should stop any new
> technology, on the chance it is abused?

Does that mean we should accept all things thrown at us because someone can spin some good out of it... even if there is a serious detrimental side?

> But just to reiterate, my main point is that
> there can be some benefits from such
> technologies. From the most part I'm a
> supporter of widespread privacy rights, but
> I think slamming a new technology on privacy
> concerns without raising possible benefits
> presents only one side of the story.

For the most part you are a supporter of privacy rights? For the most part?

What parts aren't you in support of?

> Provided this is a choice and not a
> requirement, I don't see why that would be a
> bad thing.

Again... with these types of tags there is no choice.

I can see a whole RFID-free products black market evolve if this becomes widespread.

Some people already go to the
> extent of labelling their more expensive
> items in case they are stolen.

So? Other people don't, do they? Just because some people do something is no reason to implement a widespread policy.

There are loads of people who decide it is in their best interest to borrow money like mad and go into vast amounts of personal debt... should we all do the same because they do it?

See the point? Just because others do something is no reason to do something. That arguement is the sort a small child puts forth.

And sacrificing privacy to MAYBE save a few bucks is a weak reason to sacrifice privacy.

Michael Ross

> But that's just it... if these tags are
> everywhere, there is NO CHOICE.

If nobody cares, then there is no choice. If people care, then presumably you could start up a competing firm that doesn't use tags, provide that choice and people would buy from you.

> Does that mean we should accept all things
> thrown at us because someone can spin some
> good out of it... even if there is a serious
> detrimental side?

No, but I've never said you should accept it. I'm just saying both positives and negatives should be presented.

> For the most part you are a supporter of
> privacy rights? For the most part?

> What parts aren't you in support of?

Let's suppose privacy was always guaranteed. Presumably in this situation I would be free to travel without people knowing who I was. At the moment if I hop on a plane to travel overseas I need to identify myself, violating my privacy rights. You could argue that it's self-inflicted, but given that you need to do it for all travel overseas I'd say there's no choice. If this can be considered a violation of privacy -- which I think it is -- then it's a violation I support.

Some people released from jail need to check in as to where they are, which is an invasion of privacy. In most cases I support this too.

In the example of smart tags, the consumer decides to purchase it or not purchase it, and I see no problem with this. If enough people cared about this there would be a market to sell devices that did not include the stated technology.

> Again... with these types of tags there is
> no choice.

> I can see a whole RFID-free products black
> market evolve if this becomes widespread.

> Some people already go to the

> So? Other people don't, do they? Just
> because some people do something is no
> reason to implement a widespread policy.

> There are loads of people who decide it is
> in their best interest to borrow money like
> mad and go into vast amounts of personal
> debt... should we all do the same because
> they do it?

> See the point? Just because others do
> something is no reason to do something. That
> arguement is the sort a small child puts
> forth.

I was pointing out that some people would consider it beneficial. You are replying as if I said it should be forced on all people, which I'm pretty sure I didn't.

> And sacrificing privacy to MAYBE save a few
> bucks is a weak reason to sacrifice privacy.

What about for improved services and lifestyle?

People sacrifice their privacy all the time -- when they use their credit card or debit card to buy something, when they use their mobile phone, when they sign up for gas and electricity.

Now, is it worth it? That depends on the preferences of the individual consumer. For me, I don't mind using my mobile phone knowing that it can be used to track where I am on particular days. Does that statement mean I think everyone should be forced to use a mobile phone? Of course not. But there is a benefit, and I think it's fair to mention it in a discussion of privacy concerns.

- Thomas.

> If nobody cares, then there is no choice. If
> people care, then presumably you could start
> up a competing firm that doesn't use tags,
> provide that choice and people would buy
> from you.

"Presumably" being the key word here.

Presumably... we could start some company from scratch... ask all the suppliers and other vendors to make a whole range of products specifically for us WITHOUT the coding and whatnot that Walmart asks for... and those vendors would do it.

The reality is: The Network Effect will make sure we can't do that.

> No, but I've never said you should accept
> it. I'm just saying both positives and
> negatives should be presented.

I have no problem with seeing both "sides" as it were. As long as the realities of both sides are presented equally in a realistic way.

Reduced costs to the consumer is only a guess. Not a guaranteed result. Something that may happen. And even then, only on some lines.

The ability to track YOU by what you buy is a reality. And once brought into "play" there is no turning back - due to the network effect.

The only products which will be free of chips will be fruit and veg.

Shop at stores without readers? Fine... problem is... it's not the store that is the problem... it's the product. The store might not have the technology to read the chip - just like some right now cannot read a bar code - but the product will still have the chip in it.

> In the example of smart tags, the consumer
> decides to purchase it or not purchase it,

When every product contains a smart tag there is no choice. You cannot buy one without a smart tag.

> and I see no problem with this. If enough
> people cared about this there would be a
> market to sell devices that did not include
> the stated technology.

Every vendor/supplier would need to produce two lots of everything - one for the giants with smart tag technology and one for those without. That ain't gonna happen. It's unrealistic to think otherwise. And would blow out your claimed reduced prices.

> What about for improved services and
> lifestyle?

Now your spinning again. These cost savings and improved services and lifestyle are not part and parcel of it. It's a stretched imagination that deduces cheaper prices and improved service because of these things.

I prefer to deal in realities... not maybes.

> People sacrifice their privacy all the time
> -- when they use their credit card or debit
> card to buy something, when they use their
> mobile phone, when they sign up for gas and
> electricity.

> Now, is it worth it? That depends on the
> preferences of the individual consumer. For
> me, I don't mind using my mobile phone
> knowing that it can be used to track where I
> am on particular days. Does that statement
> mean I think everyone should be forced to
> use a mobile phone? Of course not. But there
> is a benefit, and I think it's fair to
> mention it in a discussion of privacy
> concerns.

That's fine. I don't mind mentioning real existing benefits. But the benefits you mentioned are more guesswork benefits than guaranteed benefits. And even then... they are minor compared to what is being asked of us... let us track you and everything you buy and we might, maybe, possibly, under certain conditions and only if it is feasable... reduce our prices by a few pennies.

Interesting discussion.

Michael Ross

As technology advances with iris scanning a possibility, but already in place is facial scanning in such places as airports for security...another whole security topic but let's not get side tracked on it...

Example of security tags....my daughter bought a pair of shoes...imbedded right in the shoe was the security tag....the cashier passed them over the pad to nulligy the tag. We then proceeded out of the store and the alarm went off...re-did the one shoe that was the offender 3 times before it stopped triggering the alarm.

Three days later we walk into the store, my daughter wearing the new shoes, and upon leaving the store the danged alarm goes off...culprit was that same right shoe....now my daughter is being acused of trying to shoplift a pair of shoes. We are detained while they view tapes of the shoe area...we aren't on the tapes but still they don't buy the explanation and are detained for further investigation. Finally I am allowed to leave to go home and get the receipt (round trip took 45 minutes plus gas cost)...they check the receipt but as shoes aren't serialized they are arguing that this doesn't represent the shoes in question...finally after successive arguing and my temper rising they find out who was on the chech out register at the time of purchase and proceed to call her at home...she verifies the problem and we are free to go with no apologies from the store. The price: Time involved 3½ hours, cost in fuel for round trip, and totally bad taste in my mouth for the business.

A further step...lets look at Gillette's set up of snapping pictures as customers pick up RFID tagged products off the shelf. Once the picture is taken anf the RFID recorded then the customer is tracked to the checkout...if the customer doesn't pay for the product they will be tagged as they leave the store for a possible theft suspect...even though they may have changed their mind and set the product down again somewhere else in the store, or even took it back to the display...suppose they changed their mind and bought a competitive brand that had a better price....still they will be tagged as not paying for it and possibly stopped for questioning...

BUT..

....that is only the beginning. As more and more invasion of privacy comes along it will worsen. Already the picture laden id's (driver's licenses, health cards, etc) are in a database, and Gillette just took your picture...tied into a database they can now use your picture to get your total info (including medical data) just by accessing the databases that are related to photo id's. These databases for security and supposedly marketing purposes are often sold to third parties....Now you walk into another store and as you enter a reader picks up the RFID and it is auto entered into this store's database, searched, and your whole info file is now on record in this stores database(including priveledged info in medical records, etc)

And the nightmare will just blossom....

....for instance....unknown to the store it has an employee who likes children....this employee sees a little one that he/she fancies and who were scanned by the RFID reader ...this offender now has access to home addresses, phone numbers, etc...then just how safe is the child?

And the nightmare will continue.

Cornell

> Example of security tags....my daughter
> bought a pair of shoes...imbedded right in
> the shoe was the security tag....the cashier
> passed them over the pad to nulligy the tag.
> We then proceeded out of the store and the
> alarm went off...re-did the one shoe that
> was the offender 3 times before it stopped
> triggering the alarm.

> Three days later we walk into the store, my
> daughter wearing the new shoes, and upon
> leaving the store the danged alarm goes
> off...culprit was that same right
> shoe....now my daughter is being acused of
> trying to shoplift a pair of shoes. We are
> detained while they view tapes of the shoe
> area...we aren't on the tapes but still they
> don't buy the explanation and are detained
> for further investigation. Finally I am
> allowed to leave to go home and get the
> receipt (round trip took 45 minutes plus gas
> cost)...they check the receipt but as shoes
> aren't serialized they are arguing that this
> doesn't represent the shoes in
> question...finally after successive arguing
> and my temper rising they find out who was
> on the chech out register at the time of
> purchase and proceed to call her at
> home...she verifies the problem and we are
> free to go with no apologies from the store.
> The price: Time involved 3½ hours, cost in
> fuel for round trip, and totally bad taste
> in my mouth for the business.

This is an example of badly designed technology. While it is a hassle for you -- and would certainly annoy me quite a lot! -- my guess is that you'll be more reluctant to go back to that store and that store will lose your business as a result.

Obviously in your case there is no direct benefit to having the tags there, as presumably you do not steal shoes. :) However the existence of tags probably does reduce theft and thus reduces store costs allowing price declines.

I know some would say that these cost savings are all theoretical and not reality. I'd say this is very unlikely given that companies are there to maximise profits, and including tags and tag scanning devices is not a costless exercise.

Let's suppose you have two shoe stores who both experience theft. If both install tag reading devices and reduce theft, chances are the increased profit (from reduced cost) will be competed away by price reductions.

I'd say this would be the case in most cases where there's (1) a competitive environment, (2) fairly similar products, as is the case with most retailers, and (3) some technology or cost saving that can be easily duplicated or bought by competitors.

> A further step...lets look at Gillette's set
> up of snapping pictures as customers pick up
> RFID tagged products off the shelf. Once the
> picture is taken anf the RFID recorded then
> the customer is tracked to the checkout...if
> the customer doesn't pay for the product
> they will be tagged as they leave the store
> for a possible theft suspect...even though
> they may have changed their mind and set the
> product down again somewhere else in the
> store, or even took it back to the
> display...suppose they changed their mind
> and bought a competitive brand that had a
> better price....still they will be tagged as
> not paying for it and possibly stopped for
> questioning...

I think the likelihood of being stopped for questioning on that alone would be fairly slim, especially if they bought a different product.

Sure it may be that they may be watched, but where is the harm in that? Or more to the point, how is that a great leap from today, where cameras look at you in shopping centres, banks, casinos, and many public places.

> BUT..

> ....that is only the beginning. As more and
> more invasion of privacy comes along it will
> worsen. Already the picture laden id's
> (driver's licenses, health cards, etc) are
> in a database, and Gillette just took your
> picture...tied into a database they can now
> use your picture to get your total info
> (including medical data) just by accessing
> the databases that are related to photo
> id's. These databases for security and
> supposedly marketing purposes are often sold
> to third parties....Now you walk into
> another store and as you enter a reader
> picks up the RFID and it is auto entered
> into this store's database, searched, and
> your whole info file is now on record in
> this stores database(including priveledged
> info in medical records, etc)

Where do they get this information from? I find the idea that your priveledged medical records would be available to a store clerk as you walk into a store a bit far fetched.

> And the nightmare will just blossom....

> ....for instance....unknown to the store it
> has an employee who likes children....this
> employee sees a little one that he/she
> fancies and who were scanned by the RFID
> reader ...this offender now has access to
> home addresses, phone numbers, etc...then
> just how safe is the child?

> And the nightmare will continue.

Of course, this scenario can happen today. There are many organisations you give your personal details to -- driving authorities, banks, doctors, schools, your electricity company, and so forth.

It is quite possible that such people may work at any of these organisations, see your child and look up your details.

Does that stop you from using banks, schools, electricity, and any other service that requires your address? If not, why doesn't it?

I imagine it doesn't because while it's possible for the situation described above to occur, it's fairly unlikely. Just like it's possible for a drunk driver to crash into me while driving, I still drive a car because the chances of that happening are fairly slim.

What I'm trying to say is that it's fairly easy to imagine horror scenarios, but I'd say the majority of them are fairly unlikely.

If companies are there to maximise profits, why do you think they spend money on this technology? Surely it's not for the sake of invading privacy on its own -- that wouldn't be in line with maximising profits. With that assumption, I'd say it's done to either increase efficiencies or reduce costs, which increase profits. These profits can be passed on to the consumer through competition.

Just think what would happen if they weren't passed on. Let's suppose you have 2 shoe stores again, with the same cost structure. One then installs privacy-invading tags, reduces theft, but keeps prices the same to increase profit.

As a consumer, which would you shop at, given both are the same price but one gives up your privacy? Probably the one where your privacy is intact. Which in turn puts pressure on the other one to reduce prices.

- Thomas.

IF costs come down it has nothing to do with competition created by use of electronic tags. It comes down because of supply and demand.

I walk through my local shopping mall and I don't see shoe stores cutting costs NOW - with just bar codes and the like. Why will they do it later when everything is tagged electronically? Answer... they won't.

It is nice to think they will cut costs and pass savings on - in theory. But then the whole exercise was for nought as they passed it all on and are no better off than before it all began (bar the few bucks they save by getting rid of a couple of staff).

This arguement also assumes people buy based on price and price alone.

Not the case. Can't recall who said it, at this point in time, but it goes something along the lines of, "people WANT to pay more, if only you will give them a reason to." My experience proves this statement is true. (Rolex, Mercs, Rangies, etc.)

Look at the stockmarket... supply and demand.

Price of CD Players when they first came out. Supply and demand brought the prices down... not some mythical competition between Walmart and KMart.

Go into J&B HiFi and have a look at their bargain basement bin... CHEAP DVDs... they have too many of one kind and no-one wants to buy them (over supply with little demand) so the price comes down. Electronic tags or not.

Lets also remember... your examples are based on some people having tags and some not having tags.

Whereas in reality... everything will have tags because of The Network Effect. The same effect which forces almost all companies to upgrade their OS and applicable software - Word, Excel, etc. Because if they don't, then new price lists and manifests created on the new software can't be read.

I don't stop shopping at a certain clothes store because they have electronic tags which prevent me from walking out the door and stealing the item. Then again... those tags are basic tags... not ID TAGS and they are physically removed at the point of sale.

As for the clerk finding out info if they are a peadophile... the difference between what Cornell mentioned and your example is one of choice...

In your case... you have willingly given those details - for whatever reason. In Cornell's example... walking into the store saw your details taken WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

We may give up some of our privacy in exchange for certain rights... to drive, to fly to another country, etc. But this new technology TAKES our privacy away WITHOUT permission... and all we get is nothing extra - we still shop as normal.

BTW... The price of Gilette shavers in my supermarket has not come down. They are just as high as ever - if not higher.

Which raises another element... don't mistake the brief price rises followed by discounts, designed to make you think you are getting a discount.

And lets takes this another step forward... someone walks past your wheelie bin with a reader and scans all the packaging while they do it. They will know WHAT you bought, when you bought it, where you bought it, etc.

There is a big to-do about software which tracks your online movements without permission. But you don't seem too concerned about this. And this is far worse!

I think, however, that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

By the way... there are places online where for something like $50 per month you can access all kinds of govt databases and find out all kinds of stuff. This is REAL and it is NOW. So the sicko could in reality find out your details very fast because of the availability of these databases.

Jeez, a few years ago we were all priveleged to see just how much info was available based soley on a number plate. That was on another board.

Anyone with the spare money can access all that info too. So it is not far fetched.

Michael Ross

> IF costs come down it has nothing to do with
> competition created by use of electronic
> tags. It comes down because of supply and
> demand .

I disagree with this point. I know you all know I disagree with it, but I thought I'd try to illustrate why I think competition has a big impact on pricing.

Let's suppose I'm in the business of selling CD players. And so are 14,000 other people. There is heavy competition. The product I sell does not differ from any one of my competitors.

I buy the product for $1,000, and try to sell it for $2,000. Let's just assume there's no other cost other than the $1,000. A competitor selling the same product might see that, and lower his prices to $1,900. Who would buy from me when they can buy the same product from someone else for $1,900?

Chances are some people will -- those who don't know or can't be bothered -- but chances are the demand for my product will decline due to the price decline.

Unless all competitors collude to keep prices up, which is unlikely in a competitive environment, prices should decline to a point where a more 'normal' return on capital is enjoyed.

Now let's suppose instead of the above situation, I sell CD players, but this time I'm the only one in the world that does, and nobody else can. I'm a monopoly retailer, in other words.

How am I going to set my pricing? Well, chances are I'll set them above the normal market clearing rate because, hey, as a consumer you've got no choice and have to accept it.

It's one of the reasons selling MS Windows has a higher profit margin than selling fruit and vegetables -- Windows enjoys monopoly pricing whereas a fruit and vegetables retailer has stiff competition.

Thus, I think competition does affect prices, and it's not some magical thing that has no effect.

> This arguement also assumes people buy based
> on price and price alone.

> Not the case. Can't recall who said it, at
> this point in time, but it goes something
> along the lines of, "people WANT to pay
> more, if only you will give them a reason
> to." My experience proves this
> statement is true. (Rolex, Mercs, Rangies,
> etc.)

While your experience may suggest that statement is true, I'd be surprised if it's true in all cases. I would say in most cases people prefer to pay less for the same thing than more. Anyone who has been around compulsive discount shoppers will be aware of this.

Sure, there are examples where price may increase demand -- luxury goods specifically, or goods where the value might not be apparent or obvious to the buyer -- but I'd say for most goods this isn't the case.

> Look at the stockmarket... supply and
> demand.

Prices in the stockmarket are set primarily by competition amongst stock analysts and fund managers trying to buy good companies. It's very difficult to beat the market because it is efficient. It's efficient because of that competition.

> Price of CD Players when they first came
> out. Supply and demand brought the prices
> down... not some mythical competition
> between Walmart and KMart.

Another way to look at it is to say that competition increases supply which pushes down prices. If there was no competition, and a monopoly retailer you could artificially constrain supply, or in other words increase prices.

> Lets also remember... your examples are
> based on some people having tags and some
> not having tags.

> Whereas in reality... everything will have
> tags because of The Network Effect . The
> same effect which forces almost all
> companies to upgrade their OS and applicable
> software - Word, Excel, etc. Because if they
> don't, then new price lists and manifests
> created on the new software can't be read.

The reason I keep mention cost reductions is because I think it's integral to the reality of the situation.

Let's suppose that there are *no* cost saving measures and no efficiency gains from new technologies, since obviously assuming these is just fantasy. In that scenario, why would it matter if price lists can't be read and so forth? If there's no efficiency gains then you can just get someone to manually read it without additional cost, right?

I mean, if you assume that there are no efficiency gains or cost savings then you might as well assume you can operate a retailer or other business without use of these tags and you'd get business from people like yourself with no impact on cost.

If you assume there are efficiency gains -- and this is a likely outcome given that companies are profit-maximising organisations -- then these gains should be competed away.

You mentioned that prices don't instantly fall. This is probably true. But over time prices are probably lower than they otherwise would have been. Try to set up a grocery store that computes bills manually, without a calculator, when customers walk out. If you did this, you'd be ignoring new technology and your costs would increase, and to compensate you'd either need to increase your prices or run at a loss. Having said that, I think it's fair to say that the technology at the counter does, over time, reduce the end cost to the consumer.

> As for the clerk finding out info if they
> are a peadophile... the difference between
> what Cornell mentioned and your example is
> one of choice...

> In your case... you have willingly given
> those details - for whatever reason. In
> Cornell's example... walking into the store
> saw your details taken WITHOUT YOUR
> PERMISSION.

In my example I wouldn't give permission to someone that happens to be working in that bank or school either. I don't see a big difference.

> There is a big to-do about software which
> tracks your online movements without
> permission. But you don't seem too concerned
> about this. And this is far worse!

I agree -- it is far worse. :)

I'll say it again -- my main point is that giving up privacy rights is not a one sided issue.

It's easy to say "I support privacy" when it's a costless proposition. If there's no net benefit from invading someone's privacy rights, I'll support it every time. Who wouldn't?

I'm not trying to say people should support these chips. All I'm saying is that there might be some benefit to them that instantly dismissing them will overlook.

Also, I'm not really sure why my talk of potential cost cutting is dismissed as fantasy whereas mythical scanners that look at your boot or bin and instantly tell you what's there is closer to reality. :)

- Thomas.